[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 155 KB, 1024x771, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1231814 No.1231814 [Reply] [Original]

>Notoriously, Wittgenstein acknowledged, without shame, that he had never read a word of Aristotle.

Why do people take this guy seriously?

>> No.1231838

>thinks you need to have read Aristotle, of all people, to understand how the world works.

>> No.1231837

Because his own shit is pretty neato, regardless of whether or not he read Aristotle.

And as long as he understands what Aristotle contributed, I don't see why he would need to read him at all.

>> No.1231858

>suddenly, you aren't taken seriously if you haven't read aristotle

yeah, because it's impossible to be a nuclear physicist or any other profession way smarter than you pretentious faggots unless you have read aristotle

wait, NOPE

>> No.1231864

He plowed through Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica in a few days. So you're saying he couldn't?

>> No.1231879 [DELETED] 

Man, this is why I hate the world of Academia. This, right here.
"Oh, he hasn't read Aristotle! Forget what he's done; he must be an idiot!"
"He doesn't care for Kant? Well fuck him, then!"
"He dares question us? Forget him!"

The same people who question popular notions held by those in power are the ones who are often looked at favorably by history -- yet it is those SAME historians who are so quick to bash an individual for doing that exact same shit in the present. Does anyone else find this fascinating? How can you love one philosopher for going against the grain, but bash the shit out of a guy solely for doing JUST THAT in the present day. It's unbelievable.

He never read Aristotle. So, what? Does that somehow take away from his accomplishments? I think not.

>> No.1231902

>>1231879

Scientists who ignore the contributions of their predecessors are mocked.
Why should it be any different in the humanities?

>> No.1231905

>>1231902

Nobody reads about alchemy anymore, even though it was basically another step in the long road to modern science. Why should it be different in the humanities?

oh wait its because they are fundamentally different

>> No.1231910

>>1231902

There's a giant difference between not reading and ignoring. No scientist reads Newton, even though they know his laws of motion.

>> No.1231911

>>1231902
Plato/Socrates/Aristotle came up with (mostly) shitty science that got debunked

>> No.1231913

>>1231905

If you are Wittgenstein then what YOU call philosophy is akin to science in that it true if it fits with the world and false, or nonsensical if it doesn't fit with the world.

>> No.1231918
File: 21 KB, 479x359, 1286327072913.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1231918

>>1231913
>mfw my emphasis backfires

Wittgenstien thought that which what YOU call philosophy is akin to science in that it true if it fits with the world and false, or nonsensical if it doesn't fit with the world.

>> No.1231922
File: 34 KB, 192x279, 1287768027036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1231922

>>1231918
>mfw grammatical errors everywhere

It's time to go to bed.

>> No.1232224

He wasn't living in the middle ages, thus it was not necessary.

>> No.1232293

because classical philosophy is mostly about the ideal way to fuck boys and imprisoning people in caves.

>> No.1232294

>>1231913

You do realize that is the point of all philosophy, right?

>> No.1232299

are you some kkind of retarded catholic

>> No.1232308

>>1232294
i thought the point of all philosophy was this >>1232293

>> No.1232322

he thought he was smart and able to solve everything in a lil booklet. only to regret and call it bullshit some decade later.

>> No.1232357

i could give a fuck less if he hasn't read aristotle, he was fucking boring. A is no longer just A any more.

"Holy shit this guy is a philosopher and he hasn't read the first philosophical musings written on the cave walls of greece, what a faggot"

>> No.1232359
File: 19 KB, 941x652, LAO TZU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1232359

>>1232294
>bitch hasn't read up on taoism

>> No.1232364

>>1232359
>durrr hurrr nothing is nothing and i dont have to do anything for anyone
stfu 15 year old suburbanite white kid

>> No.1232365

Wittegenstein was a shitty philosopher anyway, Aristotle or no.

>> No.1232366

>>1232357
>could give a fuck less
>could

>> No.1232370

>>1232364
>hurr durr, dumb cracker faggot
welcome to 4chan, mr.hurr durr

>> No.1232383

>>1232370
doesn't really apply, i didn't say anything newfagish

>> No.1232396

More importantly, why does /lit/ take OP seriously?

>> No.1232622

>>1232293
Three stages of philosophy actually
1) Greece: How to have sex with slave-boys and imprison people in caves.
2) Enlightenment: How to extend your head to encapsulate everything.
3) Marx: YEEEEAH. WIN! Oh wait, lose. Oh well, lets do it again!

>> No.1232670

Aristotle kind of sucked, sorry, but philosophically he didn't offer much of use. (And scientifically he was a complete retard, oh he can dissect fish, but he doesn't value empiricism)

>> No.1232674

>>1232670
Lol. Aristotle is responsible for science. Its entirety.
However in Wittgenstein's time it was easier and more informative to read up to date texts.

>> No.1232706

>>1232674
No he's not, he made a small bit of work in ichthyology/biology. Nothing else of consequence.

>> No.1232770 [DELETED] 

>>1232706

Nothing else of consequence.
Optics.

>> No.1232773

>>1232706

>Nothing else of consequence.
Optics.

>> No.1232784

I don't know about you guys but I think the Poetics is a pretty seminal text

>> No.1232789

>>1231913
>If you are Wittgenstein then what YOU call philosophy is akin to science in that it true if it fits with the world and false, or nonsensical if it doesn't fit with the world.

That's the Wittgenstein of the tractatus. Read 'philosophical Investigations'.

>> No.1232799

correspondences theories of truth are so passe, time to be a useless little shit and chalk it all down to language games, if the glove fits u must acquit

>> No.1232816

>>1232799
>positivist tears
lol when a man who inspired a movement philosophy later rejects it himself.

>> No.1232830

>>1231913
Logical Positivism sucks and so does their interpretation of Wittgenstein.

>> No.1232885

>>1232830
Logical positivism isn't the worst thing in the world, but it does have some glaring holes. What you should really be appreciating in it, is the realization that metaphysical statements are meaningless, which they are, the problem of logical positivism is about how they define what IS meaningful.

>> No.1232897

So which work did Wittgenstein say that philosophy is useless crap that have to do with little language games? The tract or tthe investigations?

>> No.1232918

>>1232885
Yet logical positivism is still a metaphysical doctrine itself.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." does not mean that metaphysics, ethics, and such don't exist.

>> No.1232920

>>1232897

> philosophy is useless crap that have to do with little language games

He doesn't say that anywhere, he says metaphysics is crap in tract and speaks about language games in investigations.

>> No.1232922

>>1232897
The investigations

>> No.1232940

>>1232920
so does he take a stance on these language games or just describes them in the investigations?

>> No.1232951

>>1232918
Yes, that's one of the glaring holes in the doctrine that I mentioned. Which is why you have to adapt positivism towards more pragmatic leanings

>"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." does not mean that metaphysics, ethics, and such don't exist.

Well of course they exist, but the objects of concern within the fields don't exist, or at least matter.

>> No.1232953

Also, it's fine that Wittgenstein didn't read Aristotle. What matters is his final product. Either way, it's not as though he didn't have any contact at all with Aristotle given his readings of Arthur Schopenhauer.

>> No.1232968

>>1232951
Right or can it be taken in a less general way that they just do not exist within an epistemology which only centers itself upon T/F empirical propositions structured in modern logic?

>> No.1232987

"Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal objects apart from time, so we cannot think of any object apart from the possibility of its connexion with other things." Wow, this is just Schopenhauer distilled. Loving it.

>> No.1233695

"Things on the ground tend to go in straight lines, things in the sky tend to go in circles"
- Aristotle on derp derp derp